Rakesh Garg, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking the direction to the respondents to grant salary and other retiral benefits along with interest, as according to him, he has not been paid the retiral benefits after refixing the pay etc. as per the recommendations of the 5th and 6th pay Commissions. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, a specific stand has been taken that all the due benefits of the petitioner including the salary stand paid to him. Keeping in view the averments made, this Court had passed the following order on 21.8.2012: According to the respondents, all the monetary benefits of the petitioner had been released to him before filing of the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner seeks short adjournment to enable him to get instructions. List on 25.9.2012. To be shown in the urgent list.
(2.) AT this stage, the order dated 25.9.2012 passed by this court may also be noticed: As per the averments made in this case, the petitioner was initially appointed as Salesman on a consolidated salary of Rs. 350/ - per month with certain other incentives vide order dated 30.7.1981. However, his services were terminated vide order dated 23.6.1992. Even appeal filed by the petitioner against the order stands dismissed. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was answered in his favour. Vide award dated 16.3.1999, the Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal, Hisar held that his termination was not justified and the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement with full back -wages with continuity along with all consequential benefits except for stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect for having remained absent from duty for the period w.e.f. 6.5.1990 to 7.10.1990, 26.10.1990 to 4.11.1990 and from 9.11.1990 to 24.1.1991. The writ petition filed by the Management against the aforesaid award was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.7.2009 passed in CWP No. 12134 of 1999. Thereafter, services of the petitioner were retrenched w.e.f. 13.12.2000 as he was rendered surplus. The petitioner was also paid retrenchment compensation. Now after 11 years, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking release of his retiral benefits. In response to the notice issued, a written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein a specific stand has been taken that the backwages after the rejoining of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3,41,813/ - were released to him and even the amount of retrenchment compensation, gratuity and leave encashment etc. was paid to him vide office letter No. 8576 -79 dated 7.8.2002 and thus, nothing remains to be paid to him. On 21.8.2012, after noticing the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, this Court had passed the following order: According to the respondents, all the monetary benefits of the petitioner had been released to him before filing of the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner seeks short adjournment to enable him to get instructions. List on 25.9.2012. To be shown in the urgent list. In spite of the aforesaid order, now by moving the misc. application, the petitioner has placed on record the replication to the written statement. A perusal of the replication would show that the petitioner has just denied the averments made in the written statement and has not come out with any fact with regard to non -payment of any amount payable to him after his retrenchment. Thus, this Court is of the view that nothing remains to be paid to the petitioner. However, a written request has been placed on record on behalf of counsel for the petitioner stating that he is not well. It has been specifically stated by counsel appearing on his behalf that the learned counsel has not come to the Court today. Keeping in view the request made, the case is adjourned to 27.9.2012. To be shown in the urgent list. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has failed to point out any discrepancy in the payments made to the petitioner and make out a case that any benefits are still to be paid to him. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the present petition has been rendered infructuous, as all the due benefits of the petitioner including his salary stand already paid to him. Ordered accordingly.;